So here is an ethics question for you,
On Friday Ugandans voted in a presidential election. Everyone, except the sitting president (Museveni) and a few of his party people, acknowledged that the fix was in. The fix is always in during an African election. The strange thing is, the president is a fairly popular and probably didn't need to "bend" the vote (as nearly everyone assumes he, or his people, did). He ended up winning with 68% of the vote, his closest/only real competition officially collected 26%. Based on conversations, my non scientific guess is 50% to 38+% would have been a more honest result.
Facts: Museveni was going to be accused of manipulating the election results regardless of what he did; elections in Africa are a form of bloodsport; had the election been close, rioting and violence would have been much more likely; some of the losers are huffing and puffing, but it looks like everyone is going to peacefully accept the result.
Question: Ethically speaking, did the ruling party, hypothetically, do the right thing? By playing with the vote, even though they probably didn't need to, the manufactured popularity of the president, likely, reduced the tension of an election where the result was a forgone conclusion (regardless of the result, Museveni wasn't leaving office).
I hate how EVERYTHING is corrupt out here, and I hate how people expect and often accept it. More than that, I hate how people get "staby" when elections and politics, decided down tribal lines, blow up and a bunch of innocents get raped and dead (see nearly every country on the continent over the last 50 years). At what point do you say, "I don't like it, but it's better than the likely alternative"?